Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 31

Author Topic: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences  (Read 97843 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Freind

Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
« Reply #135 on: December 19, 2025, 05:54:29 PM »
Quote from: WorldsAway on December 19, 2025, 05:44:56 PM
Was it useless to forbid it?

I asked you a question first.
Logged

Offline Freind

Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
« Reply #136 on: December 19, 2025, 05:56:43 PM »
Quote from: Stubborn on December 19, 2025, 05:49:48 PM
Why do you condemn St. Alphonsus, Freind?

I do not condemn anything, or anyone, but fyi, Canon Law is not the Church. It can be argued that there is still time for theological debate regarding the whole issue because the Church has not officially and explicitly condemned the whole idea of a BOD yet.

You can't even answer "yes" that "the Church" gave us the New Testament. What do you know, then?

You can't even say when "the Church" does something. Go ahead if you think you can, give us a list of examples.
Logged

Online WorldsAway

Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
« Reply #137 on: December 19, 2025, 06:07:32 PM »
Quote from: Freind on December 19, 2025, 05:54:29 PM
I asked you a question first.
But the forbiddance came before the permittance  :popcorn:
Logged

Offline Freind

Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
« Reply #138 on: December 19, 2025, 06:13:21 PM »
Quote from: WorldsAway on December 19, 2025, 06:07:32 PM
But the forbiddance came before the permittance  :popcorn:

I asked you a question first. What's your conclusion?
Logged

Online WorldsAway

Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
« Reply #139 on: December 19, 2025, 06:42:14 PM »
Quote from: Freind on December 19, 2025, 06:13:21 PM
I asked you a question first. What's your conclusion?
No, I asked you a question first :popcorn:

Quote from: WorldsAway on December 19, 2025, 04:54:41 PM
The practice of the Church used to be to refuse Christian burial to unbaptized Catechumens...1917 Code says it is to be permitted. Was the Church incorrect before? Correct now? Correct before, and incorrect now?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 31
« previous next »